Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Sophisms involving logical operators require elucidation of logical form, not revision of inference rules

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Priest's dialetheism demonstrates that certain logical paradoxes (e.g., the Liar) resist purely formal disambiguation and demand revision of classical inference rules like ex contradictione quodlibet.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If sophisms involving self-reference or semantic closure cannot be dissolved by clarifying logical form alone, then the inference rules permitting such derivations are themselves defective.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Medieval obligationes literature, including Heytesbury's own contemporaries like Burley, treated certain sophisms as revealing genuine indeterminacy in consequence relations, not mere misapplication of agreed rules.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.When competent logicians systematically disagree about which inferences are valid in a sophismatic context, the dispute concerns the rules themselves, not merely their application to an obscure logical form.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The underlying inference rules in sophisms are assumed to be legitimate
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Sophisms arise from misapplication of legitimate inference rules, not from defects in the rules themselves
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42